A modern and traditional family. Is the traditional family the standard of relations between a man and a woman, or is it a relic of the past. Children in the traditional unit of society

05.04.2019

Traditional family was large in two main aspects, as was typical for the overwhelming majority of the population of the USSR before the first five-year plan: it was a form of cohabitation of several married couples of different generations, or in any case, adult married or married children and their parents, and in addition, big family was of average or large children. The head of the family, as a legal entity (and the owner), controlled the economic resources of the family, directed its life, represented the family in front of society, determined the future of its members and was responsible for them. The family was a relatively long-term group with a permanent place of residence, which, as a rule, existed longer than the life of one generation. Very important quality big family was high level its integration in the kinship system and in the territorial estate community. Continuity of lifestyles, professions, economic activities, culture, traditions, kindred solidarity and obligations were the main obstacles to the transformation of family members into an individual mobile workforce, ready for any place of employment. The family inevitably was a mediator in all interactions of the individual with any other social institution.

In a large family, connections between three generations - the parents of the spouses, husband and wife, children - were equally strong and unproductive in the traditional mechanism of socialization as the transmission of experience from older generations to middle and younger generations. In a small family, the ties between the older and the third generation practically cease to have social significance, and the ties between neighboring generations are socially active only in the initial and final period. life cycle generations, moreover, in such a way that the circle of ties between three generations turns into a chain of ties between neighboring generations - once when parents raise their minor children, and the second time (and this relationship also tends to weaken) - when children support their elderly parents. More often than not, the last burden falls not on the first-born, but on the second and subsequent children. Meanwhile, nuclearization and small families, increasing the share of single elderly people in the population, make the development of the system inevitable. social security first in the city, and then, as a result of migration and industrialization of agriculture, and in the countryside. To the extent that the connection between neighboring generations is preserved, the economic position of neighboring generations is leveled, as well as, to a lesser extent, the social significance of the family lines of a husband and wife. Since the nuclear household is connecting link in the network of kinship and since the social position of the wife and the husband tends to equalize, the statuses of the wife - husband and parents from the female and male sides become similar, none of the three interconnected family groups is structurally preferred, in principle, all interfamilial ties tend to symmetries and are governed by the norm of reciprocity. However, the position of the elder and younger generation, higher and lower economic status of generations have an impact on exchanges between families. Nuclearization guarantees the autonomy of individual households. The lower well-being of young families is a stimulus for the professional achievements of young spouses and at the same time creates a problem for the social infrastructure of the city. So, nuclearization, creating the need for the formation of individual and family well-being anew each time, underlies the aspirations for professional achievements as the main means of obtaining independent housing, property and income. This trend is in line with the demand for continuous growth in the qualifications and quality of the workforce.

Nuclearization of families reduces the structural diversity of the types of dwellings in the city, the average size of the apartment, but increases the number of households and thereby exacerbates the housing problem.

Within the family, the individualization of roles transforms the entire family structure. T.V. Svadbina Family and Russian society in search of renewal. Nizhny Novgorod, 2000.

First of all, let us note the destruction of the old system of intrafamily hierarchy, which extended both to the relations between men and women and to relations of different generations, degrees of kinship, parents and children, children of different sex and age. In the family, not only is there no clearly expressed primacy of one status over others, but the type of dependence between carriers of different family roles... While marriage and parenting are still not only personal relationships, but also legal and moral relationships, the call for the consideration of the individual interests of all persons lies at the heart of modern legal norm and legal practice... The priority given to the interests of children in divorce or deprivation of parental rights is justified by the social lack of independence of children. In all other cases, not only objective social interests each family member, regardless of gender and age, but their personal desires are the basis of intrafamily interaction. Only children are practically the exception. toddler, but as soon as the child becomes able to formulate his wishes or objections, they have to be reckoned with. Respect for the individual is recognized as inseparable from the formation and the need to maintain self-esteem. Having desires and realizing them is considered a normal way of discovering the inner resources and abilities of a person and a means of its development. The manifestation of individuality is considered a normal and highly valued quality, sometimes even in spite of conformity to the norm (although, as a rule, provided there is no dissonance with the relevant moral norms and the experience of interaction of this family as a group). The moral reasoning of a "strange" act or regular action, if accompanied by convincing references to individual characteristics, special conditions, and also does not contradict the interests of other family members and broader morality, is not only usually accepted, but also serves as a means of developing moral consciousness strengthens moral autonomy personalities in front of other family members and strangers.

Individualization of family roles leads to a strong tendency towards symmetry of male and female models of behavior in the family, to compatibility or mutual substitution of family members in the performance of many family responsibilities... This requires a reorganization of the division of labor, "family, redefinition of the characteristics of male and female subcultures in society, the establishment of new boundaries of the qualitative uniqueness of sex psychology, social, opportunities for restrictions for men and women. The former value structure of the properties of male and female character, style of behavior is gradually acquiring the new kind... The basis of such a restructuring is the transition from the "hierarchical logic" of argumentation of the difference between the sexes to logic individual characteristics and abilities, the ratio of family and non-family roles of a woman, a man and a child, a teenager or an old man.

The atmosphere in the family is changing: there is a shift from a system of punishments and rewards for carriers of appropriate roles, based on strong and clear traditions and on the authority and power of the head of the family, to a system of moral assessment, moral dispute, dialogue and self-justification, self-esteem and justification, based on moral maturity and the beliefs of all family members on the group and individual interpretation of the situation and the related social requirements and norms. Of course, this exacerbates the atmosphere in the family, but at the same time makes the tension in it less visible to outsiders and even to the members themselves. All the more important is mutual understanding and trust between spouses, parents and children, as well as frank communication between them as the main means of establishing and maintaining mutual understanding; If these conditions are not met, alienation in the family grows, moral dialogue turns into a quarrel, conflict - into violence against the individual or the desire to isolate from others in the family.

Individualization covers not only the sphere of external functions of family members, the division of labor and moral relations in it, but also extends to the area of leisure, free time, manifests itself in the functional differentiation of living space in a dwelling. Everyone wants to have a personal isolated or conditionally isolated space in their home (ideally a room). The normative image of an apartment includes the following elements: each - his own room, and in addition - a family or guest room and common places use6... Personalization also manifests itself in the control or preferential use of many durable items in the home - from dishes to televisions or radios, from sports equipment to books and chairs. And, of course, it dominates clothing and personal and hygiene items. The individualization of clothing is especially emphasized in the presence of two or more children of a close age. The contemptuous expression "rags" characterizes the attitude towards attempts to follow utilitarian considerations and neglect normative, individualized ones. It happens that the requirement for the individualization of goods comes into conflict with the elementary traditions of education and morality.

The individualization of leisure is more characteristic of the parent-child relationship. Concerning matrimonial relations, then here she is faced with the norm of the compatibility of any important intra-family affairs and events. In any case, vacations and weekends are still considered as a joint pastime, so that only certain elements of leisure are individualized (hobbies, cultural interests, creativity, communication outside the family).

The trend of individualization of the living space of family members, which is undoubtedly associated with the provision of the necessary conditions for the stable establishment and development of interests, inclinations and abilities of the individual, the preservation of the living environment in accordance with her tastes and needs, should not be confused with a number of outwardly similar trends. As mentioned, households of individuals or individuals living separately from the family, as well as group housing units and complexes (hostels, houses for small families, boarding schools, hotels, etc.) are spreading in the city. Gruko TA. Parenting in changing socio-cultural conditions // Sociology. issled. 1997. No. 1.

On the one hand, living alone; is considered, as a rule, as a temporary and forced stage for a person in his life cycle (a consequence of working conditions, study, etc.). On the other hand, this pseudo individualization of the way of living in the city is a negative manifestation of the difficulties of forming or maintaining a family, an exacerbation of the problem of loneliness in premarital youth, in marriageable ages, and also in old age. The desire to live with loved ones is universal for all groups of the urban population, since relationships with loved ones are an unconditional positive value for the well-being of the lifestyle in general.

Another trend is summer vacations for children separately from their parents: in pioneer camps, tourist centers, children's cottages, etc. Facilitating, as well as the accommodation of students in vocational schools, technical schools and universities in hostels, the formation of social and psychological independence of children, strengthening their ties with peers, the separate rest of children and parents does not correspond to a certain extent to all the aspirations of family members. Widespread success family forms rest in last years, supported by government decrees on their development, testifies to this.

The liberation of the family from the deforming influence of property and inheritance relations is fully realized under socialism. By creating conditions for the legal and actual equality of men and women, socialism makes them subjects of marriage choice. Desires, aspirations, personal preferences of people for the first time can become the basis for the formation of a new married couple. The independence of young people makes it necessary for their earlier psychological and moral maturity. A special period appears in a person's life - courtship and premarital socialization, when relations with people of the opposite sex become a special sphere and value in the life of young people and which unfold mainly outside the family and parental control- in places of study, work, socially organized leisure and communication. Peer groups acquire the character of a special institution of youth socialization, complementing the influence of the family, school and mass media, the psychological and moral maturity of young people formed before marriage becomes the basis of personal interaction in marriage, the individualization of roles in the premarital period is continued in other phases of independent family life, as in in relation to marital interaction, and in the upbringing of their own children.

Within the family, connections between generations at first glance seem today one-sidedly functional - children need parents to provide them with hygienic and living conditions, to lay the foundation of culture in the personality: to teach speech, walking, caring for oneself, to instill in children the social, personal and moral meaning of the initial categories of human existence - labor, duty, freedom, justice, deed, decision, self-respect and love for a person, the meaning of life, etc. Many other parenting functions have now disappeared or have changed beyond recognition - whether we are talking about passing on professional experience or secrets to children, familiarizing with faith or scientific knowledge, folklore or national culture, to the decency of their circle or to the sacred places of their homeland. The role of parents is relatively small in social control over the child's behavior outside the home, in determining his future socio-professional, property or marital status, in the upbringing of the children of their children - grandchildren. Yet the functions of parents for children are fundamental and irreducible.

Of course, no one has any doubts about the social role of children in demographic reproduction, about the enormous potential of young people as one of the most mobile, active, valuable factors in the development of socialism. But what is the social function of children for parents? It is true that with a large number of children, parents receive benefits, additional housing, acquire rights to benefits from public consumption funds. But these measures only partially compensate for the hardships of parents with many children, without completely eliminating them. Adult children help their parents or support them in old age, although this happens now less and less often. The function of caring for pensioners is being socialized.

In a traditional family, parents needed children as a labor force, as a guarantee of the stability of the family's social position, as a means of providing for old age. In a modern family, children become for parents a means of developing their own personality, familiarizing themselves with education, fashion, new habits of behavior and consumption, a source of information about new professions and books, cultural events and social opportunities.

Family distinction as social institution and a small primary social group, own experience the interaction of which creates the appearance of a particular family must be complemented by an understanding of the meaning of individual properties and characteristics for the stories of a particular family group and its structure.

The child has a special ability to think and feel,
it is nothing more stupid to try to replace this skill with ours.
J. J. Rousseau

Family is part public system... Society, influencing the family, forms a certain type of it. The family also affects the processes and relationships in society. A teacher working with a team of students should have a good idea of the historical types of families that differ in their value orientations. With this information, one can foresee how family relationships will affect the child's personal development, character, and behavioral reactions. This problem is dealt with by many leading psychologists and educators. Russian psychologists distinguish several types of families.

The family is patriarchal (traditional).

This is the most archaic form of family relationships. It relies on the wife's dependence on her husband and children on their parents. The dominance of the husband lies in the fact that economic resources are in his hands, and because of this he makes the main decisions.

Intrafamily roles are strictly distributed; in a patriarchal family, absolute parental power and an authoritarian upbringing system dominate. What kind of people do children in these families most often grow up to be? First of all, with a predominance of low self-esteem: they are insecure in themselves, in their abilities. If parents ignore the interests and desires of the child, deprive him of the right to vote, he does not develop an interest in expressing his own opinion, feeling is destroyed dignity... Baby emotional problems arising in patriarchal families, psychologists divide into four groups:

“I'm not good enough” - and as a result, shyness, shyness, chameleonism can appear.
“I am helpless” - the child has no search activity, he is indifferent to his own successes and failures, he constantly looks back at the one who is stronger, more successful.
“I am a stranger” is the position of an emotionally rejected child who very early lost contact with his parents, and above all with his mother. Such children do not find contact with their peers, they are uncommunicative, do not share their problems with anyone, refuse help in resolving them, do not trust people, often experience various kinds sexual problems, show cruelty and aggression.
"I am overly responsible" - this group includes children who
often experience anxiety, fear that they may receive a low grade. They are afraid of punishment and therefore sometimes commit
unmotivated actions. Such childhood problems often arise in families of modern wealthy people who believe that the degree of their wealth determines the level of intellectual capabilities and moral qualities of their children. They require submission not only at work, but also at home. The frame structure into which they are trying to drive their child sometimes turns into suffering not only for the children themselves, but also for adults.

Children and parents in such families exist under one roof, but as if in parallel dimensions: each lives his own life, but obeys the power of the elder and the main one.

“An important element of this session of the forum, - noted the chairman of the forum, Vladimir Yakunin, - was the holding of a round table about the family. Colossal significance, colossal information base - and conclusions about the need to support the traditional family as a means of fighting the demographic crisis not only in Russia, but throughout the world. "

The round table "Family: the origins and future of civilizations" was held within the framework of this forum for the first time and attracted a large number of experts advocating traditional family values and overcoming the demographic crisis that has gripped many countries of the world.

It is significant that the initiative to hold this event came from the Russian side. Initially, the idea of discussing family problems in an international format was proposed by Natalya Yakunina, Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of the All-Russian Demographic Program “Sanctity of Motherhood”.

Representatives of 24 countries took part in the round table. Presentations were made by Natalia Yakunina, Academician Patrick Feigan (USA), Director of the European branch of the anti-abortion organization "Human life International" Eva Kowalewski (Poland), Head of the Orthodox Center "Life" Archpriest Maxim Obukhov (Russia), Director of the Institute for Demographic Research Igor Beloborodov (Russia ), Vice-President of the World Congress of Families Larry Jacobs (USA), Head of the Department of Family Sociology and Demography at Moscow State University, Professor Anatoly Antonov (Russia), Member of the Madrid Bar Association Ignacio Orsuaga (Spain), President of the National Association of Families of Great Britain, Dr. Thomas Ward (England), Deputy Director of the Shanghai Institute of International Studies Xiaoyun Qiang (China), representative of the "Focus on the family" organization Yuri Mantilla (Bolivia), Member of the Board of the Latvian Family Association Bertule Marika and many others.

The central themes for the audience were the global decline in fertility below the level of simple reproduction and the global abortion epidemic. Among the painful demographic aspects were the growth of divorces, the spread of extramarital cohabitations, an increase in the proportion of incomplete families, the spread of social deviations (homosexuality, pedophilia, refusal to bear children (the phenomenon of child-free), prostitution, pornography, etc.), deformation of the sex and age structure , changes in the historically established ethno-confessional balance. All this, as stated in the draft resolution, endangers the future of civilizations.

The main result of the event was the adoption of a definition of the family that excludes such social deviations as homosexuality, extramarital cohabitation, child-free and others. According to the draft final resolution, the family is the basic unit (primary element) of society, characterized by the following integral features:

The Union of Man and Woman (according to the 16th article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948);

The voluntariness of marriage;

Living together spouses;

General household management;

Entry into marriage relationship in compliance with the procedure of public recognition in the form of state registration of marriage and / or an appropriate religious ceremony;

Striving for reproduction and socialization of new generations. The family is an irreplaceable demographic condition for the existence, reproduction and sustainable development of civilizations. At the same time, the mother and father inherently, according to human nature, have fundamental, priority and primary rights and obligations to directly carry out education, upbringing, protection, provision and comprehensive spiritual and moral and psychological support of their children;

The indissolubility of marriage is the initial mutual intentions of the spouses to be together for life, despite any difficulties in life.

It is significant that it was in a country that is a member of the European Union that supporters of the traditional family stood up for family values and the fight against the demographic crisis around the world.

The Russian participants spoke about the results of the round table.

Archpriest Maxim Obukhov, Head of the Life Orthodox Medical and Educational Center:

An important component The Rhodes Forum became the topic of the family, to which a special round table was devoted. Many experts from different countries agreed that the problem of preserving the family and counteracting its disintegration is relevant for all countries of the world. Moreover, this danger is global in nature. Crisis phenomena included divorce, a sharp catastrophic drop in the birth rate, observed everywhere, abortion, the so-called "co-habitation", or extramarital cohabitation, refusal to marry, and so on. On round table the most interesting reports were made on the situation with the family in various countries. The participants of the round table were gladdened by the fact that, as it turned out, family values unite people completely different nations, religions and civilizations. The recognition of the universality of the basic, universal values on which the family is built is in itself a unique event and requires a continuation of the conversation.

The family is truly a universal value for all civilizations. I have studied in detail the question of the origins of the modern monogamous family. The results of retrospective analysis indicate that the traditional family was a frequent phenomenon in human populations as far back as the 2nd millennium BC. Therefore, the opinion sometimes prevailing at times that our ancient ancestors were sheer savages and libertines is completely wrong. In other words, family values have been inherent in humanity from the earliest times.

Igor Beloborodov, director of the Institute for Demographic Research, editor of the portal Demographia.ru, one of the moderators of the round table "Family: the origins and future of civilizations":

The round table in the framework of the Rhodes session of the forum is a very important event. Recently, anti-family forces have intensified throughout the world. Already in eight countries, the so-called same-sex marriage is allowed. Recently, the European bureaucrats have come up with the idea of abolishing the words closest to the human heart - "mother" and "father". They want to replace them with the faceless and asexual word "parent". All this is done to please the aggressive gay lobby, whose representatives for known reasons there can only be adopted children. Mom among two, and sometimes even more, men will not appear out of thin air, and dad will not even turn to call such perverts a dad. And so they are promoting the neutral designation "parent."

But not only perverts destroy a normal family. The abortion epidemic is also largely the result of the Western-imposed "family planning" ideology. In addition, in this way, raw materials for rejuvenation called "fetal drugs" have been obtained from our babies for a long time. In general, anti-family activities, generously financed by various overseas funds and the governments of a number of liberal states, have led to a decrease in the birth rate not only in Russia, but practically on all world continents.

For a long time they have been trying to impose on us the idea that the planet is allegedly overpopulated. However, this is a blatant lie, and my report was just about that. On all world continents, without exception, the birth rate decreases from year to year. Recently, this trend has become too threatening. Even in Africa, the undisputed demographic leader, many countries have virtually European birth rates: South Africa, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and others. Asia also has serious demographic problems. Not so long ago, a historic minimum birth rate was reached there - 0.7 children. And not just anywhere, but in the Chinese provinces of Macau and Hong Kong. The population of China, no matter how feared it may be, will begin to decline in two to three decades. The average Chinese woman today gives birth to less than French or Danish women. Japan, Korea, Singapore are endangered countries. It is generally a shame to talk about Europe: its population does not reproduce itself and is actively settled by immigrants. Today in Europe there is not a single country with a birth rate that reaches even simple reproduction. We have a similar situation in Russia. All this misinformation about the coming overpopulation, shortage drinking water and other untruths follow from the concept of the "golden billion", according to which only the population of the United States and the satellite countries has the right to live on the planet. It is gratifying that the British and Americans who participated in the round table are categorically against such a concept.

I am glad that in the midst of the demographic crisis that has gripped many countries in Western and eastern world, we managed to get together in such a large composition and make a common and in many respects fateful decision. In fact, on October 11, 2010, a historic event took place: experts from different countries adopted the definition of a natural traditional family, which is the only alternative to the extinction of mankind. Unfortunately, the time has come when the concept of the norm has to be defended by all means and described in detail. We even have to specifically point out that the family is an alliance of exclusively man and woman, that the beginning is truly family relations presupposes the obligatory registration of marriage, that the family presupposes childbearing, that only parents (and not juvenile services) have the primary and priority right to the upbringing of their children.

Anatoly Antonov, Head of the Department of Family Sociology and Demography, Moscow State University Lomonosov:

It is very pleasant that the originally announced round table has grown into a full-fledged section. Instead of the standard three to five hours, there were three days of productive work, there were morning and evening sessions. Representatives of more than 20 countries gathered, there were quite a few reports and messages. Family and demographic problems are very acute and certainly deserve such high attention. It is noteworthy that not just people who are engaged in social activities related to the family, and not just scientists who study the family, but representatives of the professional paradigm - that is, people who recognize the highest value of the family and are trying to do something in order to the family as an institution could continue to exist.

Some believe that representatives of different views so that in these clashes of opposing opinions, truth is born. The dialogue of civilizations and different cultures took place, and those gathered did not waste time trying to convince each other.

For representatives of feminist theories, the family is enemy number one. For them, it is the most vile institution on earth. The family is doing an ugly, terrible, from their point of view, business. She brings up girls as girls, boys as boys, and she tries to educate both as future parents, fathers and mothers. Feminism is the greatest crime. Although, in my opinion, the triumph and triumphant march of feminism around the world is proof of the obvious schizophrenia of this world. Feminism at the beginning of the 20th century was called suffragism, and it fulfilled its task. In the developed countries of the world, it was possible to achieve real social and political equality of women and men, and it was these tasks that were set.

When these tasks were achieved, women gained access to education and were able to combine family matters related to raising children with professional responsibilities. But feminist organizations remained, and it turned out that they had nothing to do now. But they did not want to dissolve themselves, and then, according to all the laws of bureaucratic organizations, they had to come up with something in order to continue to exist. And they came up with gender feminism. A war has started against nature, against the division of people into two sexes in nature. Feminists (and feminists) cannot calm down. They believe that the anatomical, physiological structure of a person does not at all prove the difference between a person in two sexes. They believe that gender is a socio-cultural concept, and as a person himself determines his gender, this is how it should be. And in feminism there is a theory of androgyny, when people, in general, are not men, and not women, but some androgynes, in which male and female coexist, and everyone chooses their belonging to this or that sex for himself. The propagandists of these theories have read many philosophical books and themselves write completely abstruse philosophical "works". When you tell even students what is written in the articles of these feminist authors, many people do not believe. But it's true. And every day thousands of publications write absolutely incredible things. And someone really needs it!

The feminist movement is very powerful in modern world... The paradox of this situation surprises me a little. The Americans have always fought against communism, but having achieved the collapse of the socialist camp and the USSR, the Americans cultivated within themselves the same communist hydra, only under a different name - "feminism".

But at our round table there were Americans - speakers and participants - of completely different views and beliefs. Not feminist. These are the people who stand up for traditional values, including family ones. I have known many of them since 1995, that is, for 15 years already. In 1995, the famous American familist scientist Alan Carlson came to visit us. As a result, the idea was born of creating a World Congress of the Family, which would bring together people of different political views on the basis of a common interest in protecting the traditional family. And we have created this congress. And in 1997 the first congress was held in Prague, then the second - in Geneva (1999), the third - in Mexico City (2004), then in Warsaw (2007), Amsterdam (2009). We have known each other for a long time.

On all continents the globe the institution of the family is in crisis, does not fulfill its function of demographic reproduction of new generations and their proper socialization. We cite a lot of facts in our speeches, reports, showing, unfortunately, the ineffectiveness of the modern family, in which at best one or two children. Such small families are more prone to disintegration, divorce. Moreover, we live in a time when people generally choose not to marry. For example, in scandinavian countries the number of cohabitations when they refuse to officially register a marriage is higher than the number of legal marriages. This refers to heterogeneous cohabitation, although lately there has been more and more talk about homosexual cohabitation, and someone is strenuously pushing these anti-family ideas. However, homosexual union is a social pathology.

In general, the main idea that was repeatedly voiced at the round table was that the crisis of the modern family is, first of all, a crisis of values. It is sad that most states underestimate family and demographic problems.

There are three types of families, each of which corresponds to a certain stage of social development:

Traditional family

The traditional family in an agrarian society is primarily an economic unit. Under the conditions of subsistence and semi-subsistence farming, under conditions of a weak spread of complex organizational structures (such as companies), it was families that performed the main function of the primary organization of economic activity (in the overwhelming majority of cases, peasant farming). The life and death of a person literally depended on how well the family performed the economic function. Hunger in traditional society was not uncommon, so the family had to first of all ensure the survival of its members, and love and other feelings could play only a secondary role.

Therefore, the institution of marriage played primarily an economic role, its conclusion was strictly controlled by the parents of the newlyweds and other relatives, and the feelings of young people, as a rule, were not particularly taken into account. Consequently, personal life was under strict external control, premarital sex was not allowed.

The economic efficiency of the traditional family was achieved on the basis of:

one-man command (the wife and children were strictly subordinate to the head of the family),
strict distribution of roles (moreover, economic expediency, based on traditions, took priority over love relationships and a person's right to personal freedom),
the unification of a large number of people in the "economic cell" (the patriarchal "big family", when 3 generations lived under one roof, including adult brothers and sisters with their children, was widespread),
family stability (for example, feelings, as a rule, could not be a justification for a divorce).

These principles are very reminiscent of the principles of modern management in companies (however, business has already begun to move away from an overly rigid management style).

The attitude towards children in a traditional family was purely utilitarian (now we would say “consumerist”). V peasant family children worked from an early age. During periods of famine (which was not uncommon), children were the first to die. Leo Tolstoy wrote in "Resurrection": "An unmarried woman ... gave birth every year and, how is it usually done in the villages, the child was baptized, and then the mother did not feed the unwanted child, which was unnecessary and interfering with the work, and he soon died of hunger. " At the beginning of the 20th century, V.V. Veresaev wrote down an amazing folk saying: "God, give me a cattle with a brood, and children with a Primorye."

From the book of the famous demographer and sociologist A. Vishnevsky “Sickle and Ruble. Conservative modernization in the USSR ":

In a patriarchal family, a woman was viewed primarily as a family worker; the ability to work was often the main criterion when choosing a bride. “Women's labor in a peasant family and farm is terrible, truly terrible,” wrote Gleb Uspensky. - Deep respect every peasant woman is worthy, because the epithet "martyr" is really not an exaggeration to almost every peasant woman". It was not only labor that made a woman a martyr, but also her lack of rights, her dependence on her husband, father, mother-in-law, and the fact that her role as a worker was in constant conflict with her role as wife and mother. "In a large family, neither strength, nor intelligence, nor character, - nothing will save a woman from obedience and the associated harassment ..."

The popular consciousness was deeply rooted in the idea of the unlimited rights of parents in relation to children and the equally unlimited duty of children to their parents. Critical voices were heard as early as the 18th century. But even at the end of the 19th century, parental power was very great. There was still the expression “the father laid his son down” (that is, he gave it to work for a certain period of time, and took the money in advance). Parents had the final say when it came to marriage, and especially the marriage of children. Even a later author notes - in the 20s of the twentieth century - that "in the peasant worldview there is no point about the responsibility of parents to their children, but the responsibility of children to their parents exists in an exaggerated form."

The nuclear family in an industrial society

In an industrialized society, the family has ceased to fulfill an economic function. The influx of resources (money) into the family now depends on the work of its adult members in outside organizations. Whatever happened in the family, it almost did not affect the salaries of its members.

As a result, firstly, the economic necessity of strict regulation of family relations has disappeared. Many traditions and customs that support a rigid family structure and have a moral and religious justification have ceased to be economically necessary. These customs and traditions appeared as a result of natural selection: those moral principles that best corresponded to the primitive level of development of society "survived". With the transition to new level this natural selection has ceased to function.

As a result, people's feelings got out of the control of relatives and society and love became a personal matter of people. Marriages began to be concluded not only for pragmatic reasons, but primarily on the basis of love between a man and a woman.

Secondly, the economic need to live in large "traditional" families has disappeared. The nuclear family became widespread, i.e. a family consisting only of spouses and their children (nuclear families existed before, but were not the dominant type). It should be noted that the transition to the nuclear family was perceived by many as a catastrophe, as a departure from traditions and a fall in morals (in fact, family morals have just improved: for example, the physical impact on wives and children, which was considered normal in a traditional family, began to recede into the past) ... Prominent 19th-century family sociologists Frederic le Play and Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl were deeply concerned about the proliferation of the nuclear family, which they saw as a sign of a "spiritual crisis" associated with "the evils of industrialization, mobility and urbanization." Now it brings a smile, just as the current debate about “loss of family values” is likely to bring a smile to our descendants.

Thirdly, the need to give birth to many children has disappeared. In a traditional society, children were needed primarily as working hands in the household, and also as a guarantee of procreation in conditions of very high infant mortality. In an industrial society, on the contrary, children not only did not contribute to an increase in family income, but began to demand additional funds for long-term education. And in the conditions of a sharp decline in infant mortality, the birth rate inevitably decreased (this pattern depends weakly on "spiritual values", the birth rate is rapidly falling in highly relietive countries, for example, Iran).

So, in an industrial society, the economic function of the family has sharply weakened, but the sexual function (that is, the marriage monopoly on "legal" sex) and the function of raising children have been preserved (although the number of children has decreased). The distribution of roles was also preserved: the husband was still regarded as the main "earner", while the wife's lot remained the children and the "home".

Family in post-industrial society: a new type of family relations?

With the transition to a post-industrial society, the family also changes.

First, the economic independence of women is sharply increasing. The number of “purely male” jobs is declining, while the number of “universal” jobs is growing. This is connected with the development of the service sector and with the "mechanization" and automation of production: male power is no longer needed. In the USSR, women were forced to go to work, in many ways, artificially; in the USA and Western Europe a sharp increase in female employment took place in the 1960s - i.e. just at the time of the first post-industrial shift (until the late 1960s, most wives in the United States remained housewives).

Secondly, the growth of women's economic independence has led to a decrease in dependence on men and, as a result, to women's emancipation, including sexual emancipation. In this, many researchers see the reasons for the "sexual revolution".

Thus, in a postindustrial society, the institution of marriage gradually loses its function of regulating sexual relations, in other words, it loses its monopoly on sex. First, premarital sex was legitimized; at present, extramarital sex is being legitimized through the institution of swingers (when spouses enter into controlled sexual relations with other partners with the consent of each other). In other words, if the industrial family has liberated feelings (made them a “personal matter”, not subject to “family” and social control), then the post-industrial family does the same with the purely sexual sphere.

Thirdly, the loss by man and woman of their former rigidly delineated roles undermines the classical concept of marriage as a union of man and woman. The woman’s gaining economic independence allowed incomplete families to appear en masse, as well as “dynamic families” (when spouses easily break up and look for new ones; some are already considering changing spouses for granted - as one cannot work in one job all their lives). Homosexual marriages are spreading and becoming legal in many countries.

All these shifts, of course, are slow - over several generations - but the trend is evident.

One of the main obstacles to this process lies in the purely biological field. Only women can give birth to children, which makes it impossible to completely abandon the division of roles by gender. However, progress in biotechnology is likely to solve this problem in the foreseeable future. Modern medicine every year it pushes back the period when a premature baby can be nursed (now a 23-week-old fetus is being nursed). Intensive research is underway on how to care for premature baby without using his immature lungs. When the technology "breathing and feeding through the blood" is obtained, all that remains is to combine it with the already existing technology "embryo in a test tube" and an incubator for growing the fetus will be made. There is no doubt that after this, women will very quickly give up pregnancy and natural childbirth: it is uncomfortable, painful, spoils the figure and negatively affects women's health. At the same time, the problem of childlessness in homosexual marriages will be solved: any family, regardless of the gender of its members, will be able to get a child through an "incubator" (including using a surrogate egg).

What are the consequences of such changes for the evolution of the family? On this score, we can only make assumptions so far. The current trend suggests that the family is gradually losing those functions that are not related to raising children. First, the function of the "economic cell" was lost; now the sexual function is lost. It can be assumed that the family of the future will consist of several like-minded people (of any gender), united only by common interests and jointly raising children (possibly with the involvement of professional educator: a family of 4 - 5 adults can afford it). But this is already from the realm of fantastic hypotheses (however, swinging 30 years ago also looked like fantasy, but now it is widespread).

It is unlikely that the evolution of the family will be painless. As with any transition from the old to the new, it will initially have negative effects (just like the transition from the traditional to the nuclear family). There will be disoriented marginalized people who relieve themselves of any responsibility for their families and children. But gradually, with the development of new rational rules, the situation is stabilizing. It is possible that families of the new type will be stronger and more responsible than the current families of the transition period.

If you digress a little and fantasize, you can get the following picture. A marriage devoid of the monopoly of "legal sex" will only retain the function of raising children. Those. the family will initially be created for this purpose - the upbringing of children (while, of course, it is not at all necessary that the children be consanguineous for each parent). Thus, a lot of reasons for divorce will disappear. In such a family, by definition, there will be no jealousy and betrayal. There will be no divorce because of the "end of love" (now most divorces occur in the first three years life together- i.e. when love passes). Divorces will persist only in the case of irresponsible behavior of one of the parents (for example, alcoholism), but such divorces will be explained precisely by concern for the welfare of the children.

We have seen how, as the Second Wave progressed, the family transferred many of its functions to other institutions: education to schools, caring for the sick to hospitals, and so on. This gradual loss of family function was accompanied by the emergence of romantic love.

In the era of the First Wave, when looking for a spouse, people rightly asked the question: “Will my prospective spouse be a good worker? A doctor? A good teacher for our future children? Will it be good to work with him? Will he (she) take on the full load or will he shy away from it? " Peasant families asked, “Is she strong? Is it easy to bend and unbend? Or is she weak and sick? "

When these functions of the family fell away during the Second Wave, the questions changed. The family was no longer a combination of a production group, a school, a field hospital, and a kindergarten. Instead, her psychological functions became more important. Marriage involved companionship, sex, warmth, and support. Soon, this change in family functions was reflected in new criteria for choosing a spouse. They have been reduced to one word: LOVE. It is love, pop culture assured us, that makes the globe go round.

If we truly want to restore the family to its former significance, there are ways we can do this. Here is some of them.

Freeze all technology at the Second Wave level to keep the factory-based society in mass production. The computer poses a greater threat to the Second Wave family than all the abortion laws, gay and lesbian rights movements, and all the pornography of the world, because the nuclear family needs a mass production system to continue to dominate, and the computer takes us outside of mass production.

Subsidize production and block the emergence of a service sector in the economy. White-collar workers, professionals and technicians are less traditional, less family-oriented, and more intellectually and psychologically mobile than blue-collar workers. With the advent of service, the divorce rate has increased.

"Save" the energy crisis by using nuclear and other highly centralized energy processes. The nuclear family is more suitable for a centralized type of society than for a decentralized one, and the energy system influences to a large extent the degree of social and political centralization.

Ban the increasingly non-mainstream media, from TV cables and cassettes, and not publish local magazines. Nuclear families perform better where there are nationally shared information and values, rather than in a society based on diversity. While some naive critics attack the media for allegedly causing secret harm to the family, they are the ones who idealize this type of family.

Forcibly return the woman to the kitchen. Reduce women's wages to the absolute minimum. To make it difficult, not to ease the conditions for obtaining seniority, in order to be sure that the woman will continue to be at a disadvantage in the labor market. The nuclear family has no nucleus if no adults stay at home. (Of course, you can achieve the same result by reversed methods, allowing the woman to work and forcing the man to stay at home with the children.)

At the same time, to sharply cut the wages of young workers, so that they would be more dependent on their families for longer and would therefore be less independent psychologically. The nuclear family loses its foundation when young people start to work out of parental control.

Prohibit contraception and sex biology research that promote women's independence and extramarital sex, which can weaken family ties.

Reduce the standard of living of the whole society to the level before 1955, because abundance enables single people, divorced, working women and other unmarried and unmarried people to "hold out" economically on their own. To maintain a family requires a fairly low standard of living (somewhere on the verge of poverty).

Finally, society should be mass-produced again, abandoning all changes - in politics, in art, education, business and other areas - that lead to diversity, freedom of movement and ideas, or to individuality. The cell family remains dominant only in a mass society.

In short, this is what pro-family policy should be if we insist on defining the family as a unit.

… A new Third Wave family system is emerging, based on the diversity of family types and greater variability in human roles. This transformation of the family into a non-mass family opens up many new possibilities. Third Wave civilization will not force everyone to create the only existing type of family. Therefore, the emerging family system will give each of us the opportunity to find our own niche, choose or define a family style or trajectory that suits his needs.

But it is too early to dance the victory dance, you must first overcome the pain of transition. Millions of people, finding themselves in a situation where the old system has collapsed and the new one has not yet been created, will find diversity more depressing than joyful. They will not feel free, but will suffer from an excess of choice, they will feel pain, bitterness, sadness and loneliness, further enhanced by the diversity of their possibilities.

For everything new to work for us, and not against us, we need simultaneous changes on many levels: from morality and requirements to hiring.

In the realm of values, we need to begin to remove the unwarranted sense of guilt that accompanies the collapse and restructuring of families. The media, the church, the courts and the political system should try not to reinforce but to reduce feelings of guilt.

The decision to live outside the nuclear family must become easier, not more difficult. Values tend to change more slowly than social reality. We have not yet developed an ethic of tolerance for diversity, which is required and which is generated by a non-mass society. Many people brought up under the conditions of the Second Wave, firmly assimilated that one type of family is "normal" and the rest are somewhat suspicious, if not "perverted," remain intolerant of the new diversity of family types. Until that changes, the pain of the transition will remain quite palpable.

In economic and social life, people cannot rejoice in the emergence of wider family choices as long as laws, tax codes, home improvement work, school routines, housing codes, and even architecture remain indirectly on the side of the Second Wave family. They do little to take into account the special needs of a working woman, staying at home to look after a man's children, or bachelors and spinsters (disgusting expression!), Or people between marriages, or “common families,” or single widows. All of these groups in Second Wave society were discriminated against, either covertly or explicitly.

Despite the praises given to the household, the Second Wave civilization denied dignity to the person who did it. Housekeeping is productive, often very hard work and must be recognized as part of the economy. To guarantee a high status of household management (whether it is a woman or a man, one person or a group working together), we must pay for it or give it economic value.

Which types of families will disappear and which will spread will depend less on the speeches from the pulpits about the "sanctity of the family" than on the decisions we make given technology and work. Because many forces affect family structure - communication patterns, values, religious movements, demographic, even environmental change - the link between family type and work organization is strong. Thus, just as the nuclear family was supported by the construction of factories and work in the office, so any movement from the factory and from the office will provide strong impact for the family.

In England today one parent in ten is headed by one parent, and one in six of them is a man. The New Society calls the single-parent family type "the fastest growing group in poverty." A London-based organization, the National Council for Single Parent Families, arose to protect this group.

In Germany, a housing association in Cologne has set up a special block of houses for these families and provided daytime childcare so that parents can work. And in Scandinavia, a number of welfare laws have been passed to support such families. The Swedes, for example, provide first-class childcare and daycare for single-parent families. In Norway and Sweden, such families often have a higher standard of living than typical families (12).

Controversial new family types emerged during a period characterized by high remarriage rates after divorce. In Future Shock, I defined as “common families” those in which two divorced couples with children remarry, introducing children from both marriages (as well as adults) into a new, extended type of family. It is now believed that 25% of American children are or will soon be members of such families. According to Davidine Meilis, such “many parents” families can become the main form of the family of the future. “We are entering economic polygamy,” Meilis says, meaning that the two combined families usually transfer money to each other for child support or other payments.

In technologically advanced countries today you can see a tremendous variety of family types: homosexual marriages, communes, groups of older people living together to combine spending (sometimes they are linked by sex), tribal groups among some ethnic minorities and other types coexist, which never it was before. There are arranged marriages serial marriages, family groups and many intimate relationships that may or may not be sexually active.

Overcoming the "crisis" of family relations

By the crisis of family relations they mean an increase in the frequency of divorces, an increase in the number of civil marriages, etc. To this is mixed with "sexual promiscuity." And as a consequence, they deduce a decrease in the birth rate, the problem of "abandonment" of children and an increase in homelessness, etc. In reality, the decline in fertility has very different reasons (see section "Demography"). If we compare the attitude towards children in modern and traditional societies, then in modern it is much better. Among the middle class (that is, among Modern people), the responsibility of parents to their children is higher than among people whose mentality has remained at a primitive level (as well as manifestations of alcoholism, crime, etc.).

In the previous subparagraph, we have already said that the current "crisis" of family relations is not a crisis, but a transition to a new family model. However, any transition to the new is accompanied by negative phenomena associated with the fact that some people perceive the change in the rules as the abolition of the rules and begin to behave irresponsibly. This is the problem of the traditional mentality - people are accustomed to the fact that everything has long been decided for them (within the framework of tradition) and they are unable to take responsibility under the conditions of freedom.

Obviously, new rules of family relationships are needed, combining both freedom in the sexual sphere (including the possibility of changing partners) and careful caring for children.

It should be noted that history knows examples of stable societies characterized by freedom of sexual relations. For example, in a number of traditional societies in Micronesia (islands in the Pacific Ocean), people began sex life in adolescence (and were good at protecting themselves). By the way, as a result of the lack of complexes, girls there experience orgasm in almost 100% of cases. Wives in these societies have the right to have sex with other men if the husband leaves. And all this did not in any way affect the attitude towards children - they are very much loved there and, unlike in Russia, there are no “social orphans”.

It has already been said above that the family has lost its economic function and is gradually losing its sexual function (meaning the loss of the monopoly on "legal" sex). However, the family retains the main function of raising children. Therefore, the new family morality should regulate, first of all, not the relationship between spouses, but the attitude towards children, to be “child-oriented”.

This morality is already being widely developed. Most of the middle class are making hard efforts to develop their child (primarily intellectual), to get them good education, as well as providing for him “ happy childhood". Physical punishment and cramming, which were the main methods of upbringing only a few generations ago, are becoming a thing of the past (it should be noted that even earlier, in preindustrial families, the attitude towards children was generally purely consumerist - as extra mouths or as additional labor force). Research shows that every child today gets significantly more parental attention than 50 or 100 years ago. This is due to the fact that the working day of parents has decreased significantly (including housework), and the number of children has decreased. The model of relationships between parents and children is changing - from unquestioning obedience to friendly, respectful relationship when the child is more often convinced than ordered. In other words, the humanization of relations in Modern society also affects the family sphere.

A new attitude towards children, which implies an investment of considerable effort and money in them, is widespread among the middle class. Thus, the corresponding tendency - orientation towards children - already exists, it is only necessary to make this tendency dominant.

Unfortunately, this task has not yet become a conscious social need. State aid is intended primarily for the poorest families with children. State policy is not focused on stimulating the birth of children in families that are capable of raising the most effective members of society. In other words, society is trying to stimulate the dying (and in Russian realities alcoholic) traditional large family, and not the appearance of a second and third child in a modern family.

Media propaganda also pays little attention to the advantages of having children in Modern families - at least in terms of obtaining maternal / paternal satisfaction, the meaning of life (life is not lived in vain and we will "continue" in our children) and provision in old age. When the media talk about the problem of fertility, they usually show some kind of positive example. a large family with hard-working, but poorly educated and poor parents (and a mother who has grown fat from overwhelming worries). A normal woman perceives it this way: "They are, of course, great, but this horror is not for me." We need other examples, not coming from traditionalism that is incomprehensible to modern people, but showing normal, successful families with two or three children. In addition, programs are needed that purposefully stimulate the parental instinct, such as "Through the mouth of a baby", etc.

As the authoritative demographer Margaret Saturwaite writes (in the article “Russia Stuck in Transition”), attempts to revive family values by reanimating traditionalism are futile and counterproductive. “This is a dead-end path, because the desire to have children arises or does not arise in specific modern people who live in the modern world, are focused on personal well-being ... The desire [of people] for self-realization ... is increasing, and the task is not to try to suppress this desire, declaring it to be a corrupting and harmful tendency, but to turn the family into one of the prestigious and respected components of this self-realization, this modernizing way of life, ”the article says.

The transition from having many children to having few children is associated with economic factors (see section "Demography"). Therefore, in order for society to move from the model of one-child family to two- and three-child families, powerful economic incentives are needed. Such incentives cannot be given social help(no budget is enough to pay benefits equal to salary).

Therefore, other methods are needed. One of the possible options is sharp difference in taxation... Those. the entire tax burden (in the context of individuals) should be borne by “small” people. And not only with regard to income tax, but also taxes on real estate, cars, etc. Fertility should be stimulated not by miserable benefits, but by the realization that having a second or third child is a step towards higher incomes in the future. Only then will the "moral propaganda" of childbearing have an effect.

This approach has the important advantage that it stimulates childbearing only for those who pay taxes. Those. among the most law-abiding and responsible part of society. Unadapted immigrants and other people employed in the shadow economy are not eligible for this incentive. As the experience of France shows, this is important (in France, state programs to increase the birth rate stimulate the Arabs to a much greater extent than the French; the result is sad - numerous Arab teenagers organize pogroms). Such an approach has not yet been used anywhere in the world (all programs to increase the birth rate focused on benefits and fixed tax deductions, which proved to be ineffective).

What new rules of family relations need to be developed and how to promote their implementation?

These rules, obviously, should be aimed primarily at ensuring responsibility towards children. In family life, the main “sin” should not be extramarital sex, but the abandonment of children. People should understand that their main family responsibility is to work with children, communicate with them, and raise their intellectual level. And that this is an important part of the meaning of human life. Neglect of parental responsibilities should be condemned by society to the greatest extent (along with manifestations of intolerance, aggression and violence).

One of the problems is the difficulty in contacting one of the parents with the children during a divorce (even purely physically - since the parent lives in another place after the divorce). Another problem is connected with this: since in a divorce, the main burden of raising and maintaining children falls, as a rule, on a woman, in the conditions of the prevalence of divorce, this serves as a powerful argument (for a woman) against having children. One of the methods of solving this problem is to stop the practice of leaving the child exclusively with the mother, and to switch to the "equal distribution" of children between the parents. If the child is alone, then it is necessary to leave him with the parent who has more opportunities to raise and support the child.

The ideal option would be to implement the one-adult-one-child model. Those. it is the duty of every adult to have at least one child, to whom the adult bears full responsibility and who moves with the adult to a new family in case of divorce. Obviously, this is also a solution to the demographic problem, since there will be a child for every adult, and the population will thus reproduce itself. It is clear that such a model will be able to fully operate only after the invention of the technology not only of "conception in a test tube", but also of "growing in a test tube" (so that a man can have a child on his own). But now the state can stimulate the development of such a model in the following way. We have already spoken above about the need for tax incentives for the establishment of children. One of the options for such incentives: when the first child is born, it allows you to remove high taxes from only one parent, and the second child removes taxes from the second parent. In case of divorce preemptive right the parent for whom the child is "taxed" has per child. Since a man, as a rule, earns more, the child will be registered with the husband (for reasons of tax optimization). Thus, a woman will have an incentive to give birth to a second child - "a child for herself", because otherwise, upon divorce, the woman is left without a child.

The family must become fully traditional

In 2018, new measures of material support for families with children will begin to operate in Russia. These are payments for the first child, state assistance for mortgages, provision of nurseries, etc. Plus, the program is extended maternity capital... These measures are believed to help improve demographics. However, they are not of a demographic, but of a social nature and represent measures of material support for families, i.e. help in what has.

Our demographic thinking is built on the wrong premises. We are hypnotized by "finance" and believe that for a family to heal, you just need to "pour" money into it. Imagine that your seriously ill relative has been in the hospital for many years. He is not getting much better, and he continues to be in a very serious condition. And we, instead of treating him, believe that you just need to give him money. Yes, it will brighten up his stay there, but Will NOT cure... Roughly the same technique is used in relation to the family. They don't even try to heal the family, they just help her financially. Will this have a demographic effect? No. The patient needs help, but first of all the patient needs to be treated!

Those who have worked on the earth know that only a healthy tree will bear fruit, and only a healthy animal will produce offspring. All living things give birth to offspring only in a healthy state. The current family is unhealthy, and to expect abundant fruits from it, i.e. childbearing is useless. What is the unhealthy family? The fact that it has become an institution and they treat it like an institution with such measures: you have a problem - here you have money.

I can say in another way. The family has ceased to be traditional. If a man and a woman are married, this is only the first step towards its creation. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of families are not traditional, since they live not by traditional ideas about the family, but by the ideas of the twentieth century. And they are perverted. I can list them point by point.

At first, this is an attitude towards having few children - to give birth to one, maximum two (under favorable conditions).

Secondly, it is the very attitude that the parents "make the decision to have a child." These words make me shiver. Because living in a marriage avoiding children is avoiding each other, it is devaluing the marriage itself. It's a shame. It is useless to expect from such a shameful "marriage" that it will have many children.

Thirdly, it is the willingness to kill your children.

Fourth, this is an attitude that both parents should work, and educating is the aunt's business in the kindergarten, teaching is the aunt's business at school.

What does a traditional family look like? First of all, it is created in God and is hierarchical. The husband is the head of the wife, and God is the head of the husband. The family of unbelievers is by definition not traditional, since there is no hierarchy. Because of this, she will not have many children (exceptions are very rare). After all modern spouses do not understand their purpose at all.

Secondly, in a traditional family, children are not "planned" but loved. And children are the fruit of love, not the fruit of a "plan." And when will the family be given new baby, only God knows it. The business of the spouses is not to go against God and abstain from each other only during fasting and prayer (see 1 Cor. 7: 5), and not to live for themselves according to the principle "maximum pleasure, and no children, otherwise it is expensive." This is homicide, this is the murder of the future.

Thirdly, in a traditional family, defenseless children are not killed. What do we want to fix in demography if the state kills children !? What kind of people-saving? Children are slaughtered like cattle. I understand that the people are not ready to not kill at all, but at least some attempts to limit the killings should be. So far, there are none. In these conditions, all calls for improving demographics will remain empty words. But the worst thing is that people want to kill. The state allows this to be done, but the people themselves go for murder. They kill THEIR children.

Fourth, in a traditional family, the financial support of the family rests on the shoulders of the head. The wife is mainly engaged in the household and children. Therefore, she has time for children. The family where a woman quickly puts her baby in a "storage room" - a nursery or a kindergarten, is by no means traditional. And to support this institution means to destroy the family. A wife is, first of all, a mother, and not an employee in her office. Women need to be returned to the family, not torn out of it.

Fifth, in a traditional family, children are raised and taught by parents. At the very least, they keep the learning process under tight control. This is such a traditional family. The one where the school, the Internet, the street teaches children is not a traditional family. And then we wonder why the link between generations has been severed. Because parents, worshiping the idol of their "equality", equally do not take care of their children, putting it on the shoulders of the state - kindergarten, school, "society", "collective". And then they make claims, they say, you taught my child the wrong way. No, it was his parents who left him at first.

At sixth, a traditional family is created for life. Of course, everyone will say that they are getting married for life, but ask about their personal attitude to divorces - and you will understand why there are 60 divorces per 100 marriages in Russia. Because marriage is perceived as a temporary cohabitation without obligation. I didn't like it - they fled. "Didn't agree." In a traditional family, this is impossible.

Finally, one last thing. What is tradition? In Russian, this is a legend (lat. Trans - transmission). A traditional family is one in which the word of God is passed on from parents to children. In a more general sense - the worldview of their community. What can convey modern family, if the parents communicate with the child on average 10-15 minutes a day? According to other sources, up to 40 minutes, of which part of the time is spent just sitting together in front of the TV. That is, parents do not really communicate with their children, putting everything on the notorious "socialization". No, this is not a traditional family, not to mention the fact that the parents themselves often do not have a solid worldview.

In many ways, the traditional concept of the family differs from that which we, lost people of the 21st century, consider traditional. Our task is to come to our senses and start with ourselves. The family is not built by the state, but by ourselves. Therefore, you need to start with yourself. We have no other way.